Empathy and Privacy

After being exposed to the course materials this week I learned a fair amount about how social media has redefined our understanding of social change and the different ways in which we as individuals can use networked publics to participate in civic engagement online. Guest lecturer Danyel Ferrari discusses her studies in regards to sentiment and how it is a key tool in evoking a response out of people specifically through art and she goes on to connect this concept to social media. I have been exposed to this kind of content that intends to elicit an emotional response from the audience with the hope of motivating civic participation in order to create social change. Honestly I feel bombarded by this kind of content as of late, in regards to COVID-19 efforts and overall relief programs. It does surprise me however when Ferrari points out the idea that the use of affect in social media content can have the opposite effect of what is intended: rather than putting the individual in a perceived position of power to incite change it is creating the idea that we as people are the ones who need to make the change rather than demanding change from the institutions that have perpetuated the problem in the first place. Even though sentiment is argued by many regarding whether or not it is encouraging positive changes in society there is no denying the fact that empathy has positive intentions. But after reading Carolyn Pedwell’s piece “Is Our Culture of Empathy Perpetuating Inequality,” I realized that false empathy that is shown as being genuine can dramatically hurt society. Pedwell provides an example where a politician that claims to empathize with a financially disadvantaged population pushes policies that do not address the real concerns that these people have. Finally, I learned about how different people interpret privacy and the implications that new technologies have on society in terms of collective privacy rights, especially through the presence of the internet. In the article “Where Would You Draw the Line,” by Stuart A. Thompson I was surprised to see how far people were willing to allow their privacy to be sold, used and distributed. I consider myself to be a fairly relaxed person but when it comes to my information I do not feel comfortable with things like having my DNA imputed into databases, my face being tracked on smart doorbell systems and other privacy concerns that involve having my personal information available for anyone to access. In the end, I definitely have developed a newfound skepticism about affective images/content as they can have impure intentions and have become more concerned about the future of privacy regulation in part because of the lack of concern many people have.

The topics discussed this week correlate to my case study in regard to concerns of having sensitive medical information documented and stored for people to access and take advantage of, and the idea of good intentions turning out to be counterproductive to the overall aim of the technology/content. My case study involving Apple watches and tracking technology poses serious fears of having a person’s personal medical information accessible in order to be more convenient. In the “Privacy in the Digital Age” powerpoint it is mentioned that there is a website that some doctors’ offices are employing in order to make scheduling appointments easier and 52% of people surveyed said that this practice would be acceptable. It is things like this, adopting a careless attitude in order to reduce time spent doing things most people do not enjoy, that are causing people to neglect considering the consequences of sacrificing our privacy. Apple Watches track everything from our location, to our own heartbeat, there is even a health application where it can track what we eat, women’s menstrual cycles, exercise habits, medical records and so on. People think that they are collecting data and making their lives more efficient but really they are creating an in-depth profile about themselves that third parties can use to their advantage by selling that information and extensively advertising according to that information. Even though people may have the purest of intentions when it comes to bettering themselves (or in reference to this week’s topic regarding affective techniques) this can turn around and can have a negative impact on users by pushing the mentality that numbers are necessary in achieving that “better version of yourself” and therefore worsening the already low self esteem that people, looking to improve, have.